sergeauckland
pfm Member
No because I've not heard either of these amplifiers compared, nor have I seen any measurements that would lead me to understand whether there should be a difference or not.
S.
Naim = bright?
- Thread starter zarniwoop
- Start date
- Status
No because I've not heard either of these amplifiers compared, nor have I seen any measurements that would lead me to understand whether there should be a difference or not.
S.
Scientists & engineers often appear to believe that because existing ways of measuring something like amplifier performance shows little difference between models that they must therefore sound the same. A good engineer will also listen & not go into denial if they can't hear differences then try to devise measurements that explain them. Just because something cannot yet be explained scientifically doesn't necessarily mean that a particular phenomenon can't exist! A visionary engineer who can't hear the differences but knows many claim they can will still investigate rather than arrogantly state that they must be wrong.
In many ways I wish that similarly spec'd stuff did sound the same - I could then choose on looks, build quality, facilities & price thus avoiding trusting my own ears. I also have "Electronics Training" - it means jack when it comes to SQ appreciation!
Blind ABX testing is a bit like democracy: it's flawed but the best we have. I'd put my money on even disinterested people being able to hear differences under such testing.
In many ways I wish that similarly spec'd stuff did sound the same - I could then choose on looks, build quality, facilities & price thus avoiding trusting my own ears. I also have "Electronics Training" - it means jack when it comes to SQ appreciation!
Blind ABX testing is a bit like democracy: it's flawed but the best we have. I'd put my money on even disinterested people being able to hear differences under such testing.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Just because something cannot yet be explained scientifically
Name any conceivable aspect of amplifier functionality/design which cannot be wholly described by current electronics theory.
I'd put my money on even disinterested people being able to hear differences under such testing.[/QUOTE]
You'd lose.
Chris
Name any conceivable aspect of amplifier functionality/design which cannot be wholly described by current electronics theory.
I'd put my money on even disinterested people being able to hear differences under such testing.[/QUOTE]
You'd lose.
Chris
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
No I can't but then I'm not talking about functionality or design - I'm talking about sound quality! As for ABX testing - citation please.
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
I just want to know what SS amps sound the same, it's not enough to say they just do!
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Quad 405.2 and MF Synthesis and MF Dr Thomas and Studio T and Meridian (Can't remember number). I had them all available at the same time, and into the same loudspeaker. (KEF 104.2 if I remember correctly) Level matched and blind, no difference.
S.
ultrawomble
Sith Lord
Really? It would seem that even interested parties are unable to hear differences:
http://www.stereophile.com/solidpoweramps/606/index.html
flatpopely
Prog Rock/Moderator
Thanks.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Ah, so sound quality is metaphysical, is it? Not explained by the science? Outside of science? Fashioned by mysterious forces? Brought down from on high on tablets of stone?
As for blind testing, try
http://www.head-fi.org/t/486598/testing-audiophile-claims-and-myths
Chris
Why do you talk in absolutes then? You state things as fact when you should be expressing an opinion should you not?
sergeauckland
pfm Member
Robert
Tapehead
Serge states things as fact then they are fact.
Surprising as it may seem, audio is governed by the same scientific disciplines which govern the operation of your television or washing machine.
There are facts and absolutes where audio engineering is concerned, much as some would prefer to believe that everything operates in a mess of uncertainty.
That is true. What I am saying is that maybe Serge, and other audio engineers, don't know them all. That there are parameters that can effect the sound that either do not show up in typical tests or are not taken any notice of.
I've met people before who were totally certain that all correctly designed amplifiers, CD players etc sounded the same based on measurement when real world experience overwhelmingly suggests that they really, really don't. It seems obvious that the people at either end of the objective-subjective debate are both missing something and it would be nice if occasionally they'd be humble enough to admit the possibility.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
There's no "maybe" about it, I don't know it all, by any means, but I do know some of it. That "some" is enough to know what parameters affect sound and what don't, as these things have been known about for some 60 years.
I also know a fair bit of what I don't know, and avoid making statements on those subjects except occasionally to express an opinion or ask a question, which are clearly identified as such.
The problem, it seems to me (expressing an opinion!) is that subjectivists are only concerned with what their own experiences tell them, and as we know enough about how fallible human senses are, it's no wonder that there are those like me who pay little attention to what we think we hear unless corroborated either by measurements or by statistically valid listening tests.
S.
Brian
Eating fat, staying slim
If you applied that same concept to audio equipment you'd be making some progress.
sergeauckland
pfm Member
But I do. The purpose of HiFi equipment is to reproduce what is on the CD with the minimum of change and to render a larger version of what went in. No more and no less.
If you have a different definition of purpose, for example, to give maximum pleasure, that's your definition, and you have to judge your equipment choices against that.
In my defence, I'll say that HiFi, being a contraction of High Fidelity, implies that the equipment will maintain high accuracy such that the output is a larger version of the input with as little as possible added or removed.
Even the Germans with their DIN 45500 standard defined HiFi as meeting a minimum specification for distortion, frequency response and noise.
S.
Do you think the people who design and fix vacuum cleaners don't know how they work? This hi-fi mysticism is instilled by the manufacturers, some of whom would have you believe that designing hi-fi is an "art".
The old story about things measuring the same but sounding different is so obviously untrue as to be barely worth discussing. If two things actually do sound different, you can bet your bottom dollar that the difference is measurable.
- Status